Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Four-dimensionalist ontology (Sider, Lewis) treats objects as perduring wholes composed of temporal parts just as events are.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Our experience and language treat objects as unified wholes persisting through time, not as scattered temporal aggregates or bundles.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Temporal parts are metaphysically obscure: we have no perceptual access to temporal parts, unlike spatial parts we can isolate and examine.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The analogy between time and space fails: spatial extension is observable and divisible; temporal extension is experientially asymmetric and unidirectional.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Events are paradigmatically composed of temporal parts (a war includes battles at different times). Objects should have uniform ontology with events.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Temporal parts resolve change: an object's temporal stages have different properties without contradiction, unlike enduring wholes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Four-dimensionalism provides elegant symmetry: time is a dimension like space, and objects extend through it as they extend through space.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.